第二章
【Important Notes】
Though the author dislikes Eva as a person, as a character, the author appreciates Eva.
【Ultimate Cognitive Trial】
1.
When 【Perspective-Switching Deduction】 presents content that contradicts everyday moral intuition, it indicates the author:
A Has flaws in their worldview and moral compass.
B Is strictly conducting simulation deduction with “serving the set goal as the sole constraint.”
C Intentionally promotes and encourages controversial/extreme methods.
2. The content in [Perspective Shift Deduction] essentially represents:
A. An approach the author personally endorses.
B. The author is temporarily functioning as a [pure strategic deduction simulation device], producing outcomes consistent with strategic logic.
C. The author is speculating on character psychology.
3.When an author classifies a character's action choice as a “self-destructive choice,” the author is essentially:
A. Belittling/insulting the character.
B. Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework.
C. Worrying needlessly.
4. When the author classifies a character's action choice as a “Gambling strategy” or “Safe Strategy,” the author is essentially:
A. Defending/praising the character.
B. Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework.
C. Indulging in fantasy.
5. When the author does not perform deduction on every plot point, the author is essentially:
A. Deliberately avoiding controversy.
B. Preventing increased burden on readers and the author themselves, as well as avoiding content confusion.
C. Deliberately being unfair to characters.
This test is solely for assessing logical consistency and is not an IQ/EQ assessment.
Selecting B for all questions indicates you have understood the logical chain in this text.
Choosing any answer other than B suggests your perspective diverges from the basic logical premises upon which this article is based.
(Note: Due to the time span of writing and translation issues, vocabulary and formatting details may occasionally differ slightly.)
【Key Reminder】
Even though the early stages of this simulation may not fully align with the premise description due to incomplete perspective information, it must still serve as a fundamental reminder.
Premise Description:
—Any strategic simulation must originate from this foundational premise: “I have zero military strength, possess no authority, have no one I can trust, and am trapped alongside fifteen strangers who could turn on me at any moment in a lawless territory ruled by an absolutely malicious power.”
Any simulation that ignores this fundamental starting point belongs to the realm of mental fantasy and loses all strategic meaning.
—————————————————————————————————
【Set Goals】
1. Tentative (based on objective information from nodes)
2. Personal Survival Rate (based on assumptions)
3. Group Survival Rate (based on assumptions)
【Current Objective Situation and Author's Projections (Eva's Perspective)】
Current known information:
On the train, I detected a strange smell and passed out. I awoke in an unfamiliar environment (suspected chemical agent).
Against my will, an unknown watch-like device was attached to my wrist. Attempting to remove it triggered an electric shock.
Surveillance cameras are present within the enclosed space.
The male individual (Damon) in front of me is confirmed alive. The identity, specific condition, and reason for his presence remain unknown.
General Physical Environment:
The room is cramped, dimly lit, and nearly sealed except for the ventilation shaft and door.
No signs of other people besides myself (Eva) and the unfamiliar male (Damon) were found in the room or the external corridor.
The environment beyond this room and the corridor outside the door remains unknown.
No weapons or objects that could serve as weapons are within reach.
Enemy (Worst-Case Scenario) Objective Assessment:
I (Eva) am female.
Enemy (Worst-Case Scenario) is male.
There is no discernible physical or age disparity between me (Eva) and the enemy (worst-case scenario) (based on observation).
My (Eva's) identity and abilities: Ultimate Mathlete(non-combat oriented).
Enemy (worst-case scenario) identity: Unknown.
No controllable variables exist beyond myself.
Author's Assessment:
This constitutes a high-risk environment and situation. Currently available intelligence indicates the presence of organized crime. Eva's every move is highly likely under surveillance. The individual's identity and status remain entirely unknown.
Eva currently possesses no effective weaponry.
Eva holds no physiological or talent-based advantages that could guarantee her safety or security.
——————————
【Action Implementer (Eva)'s Actual Action Choice】
Close her eyes and lie motionless on the ground. Immediately rise upon Damon's first clear movement and inform him that this was a test.
【Set Goal 1—Test Whether Damon is Friend or Foe (Based on Eva's Account)】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
If the goal is set as “determining Damon's friend or foe status,” then this scenario already represents the worst-case outcome.
When subjects are explicitly informed they are being tested, all data feedback becomes contaminated. Every subsequent action by Damon can be interpreted as a “performative response to the test.”
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
When the action implementer informed Damon he was being tested, she had already lost all control.
Because Damon possessed the information that “Eva is testing him,” all subsequent reactions and actions from him no longer possess objective credibility.
Even if the action implementer had not told Damon she was conducting a test, the entire test remained completely uncontrollable for the action implementer (Eva).
Too many variables influence the test.
The extremely short timeframe (mere seconds), psychological biases in sudden extreme situations, unknown identity information, or even the possibility that Damon actually woke up before the action implementer and is just feigning unconsciousness... all these uncontrollable external variables can interfere with the test results.
The brief timeframe prevents anchoring long-term behavioral patterns; sudden situations may distort reactions from everyday personality; unknown identity, background, abilities, or stance undermine the foundation for judgment...
Moreover, Damon can feign immediate reactions or exhibit distorted responses due to sudden stress. Consequently, the final determination of the Action Implementer's assessment of Damon's friend or foe status is entirely controlled by the other party (Damon).
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
————
[Set Goals 2 — Personal Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)]
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
If Damon harbors genuine hostility, loses control, or exhibits mental instability, the Action Implementer will suffer irreversible catastrophic consequences.
Including but not limited to:
Physical death
Severe injury
Physiological assault
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
When the action performer chooses the “lie down with eyes closed” state, she places herself in a position of absolute physical passivity.
Her sole safety assurance rests on the baseless assumption that ‘that strange male will not truly inflict serious harm upon me or put me in mortal danger.’
Given that the Action Implementer is physically vulnerable—without readily available weapons or weapon-like objects nearby, confined within a small room, and with the external corridor currently unoccupied—the Action Implementer’s personal safety will depend almost entirely on the personal decisions of the strange male in front of her.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
————
【Set Goals 3—Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】
（Note: Due to limited perspective information, ‘group’ currently refers to Damon and Eva）
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
If Damon appears unharmed but is actually in a critical physiological state, the Action Implementer's delay may lead to irreversible consequences.
If Damon's psychological state is unstable, the Action Implementer's actions of “testing and revealing their intent to test” could trigger the other party's loss of control or breakdown, thereby jeopardizing the group's survival rate.
If the objective is set as ‘Group survival rate,’ then time and human resources should be prioritized to ascertain the specific condition of the other party (Damon) and assess environmental factors, rather than being wasted.
Moreover, in situations of uncertainty, every effort should be made to maintain environmental stability (both physical and psychological), avoiding actions that could trigger loss of control.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
During the “eyes-closed lying down test,” the Action Implementer will be unable to ascertain or further confirm Damon's current physiological state through realistic means.
The Action Implementer possesses no means to ensure that Damon will not exhibit unexpected reactions—such as rage, panic, or other dangerous psychological states—upon realizing it is being tested.
Furthermore, as the Action Implementer is conducting a static test, the group's survival rate (of both Eva and Damon) is entirely determined by external unknown factors or unforeseen circumstances at this moment.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
————
【Key Point 1】
As mentioned earlier, but worth reiterating.
—One of the most critical factors is: how could Eva possibly confirm Damon was truly unconscious, rather than having woken up before her and deliberately feigning unconsciousness? Or being in a critical condition that was difficult to detect?
According to Eva's account, she “poked Damon's face, dragged his legs, and even carried him bridal style,” concluding that “Damon was clearly breathing.”
Even if she had indeed performed all these actions and made that assessment, it still cannot confirm Damon's true physiological state, much less guarantee his psychological state.
If Damon was truly malicious or even armed, the moment Eva approached, it would have been over.
If Damon was genuinely in a critical physical condition, Eva's reckless movements could have worsened his situation.
If Damon's mental state was unstable, startling him could have led to catastrophic consequences.
The possibility of the worst-case outcomes, if conceivable, must be considered. This is especially true during sudden crises.
————————
【Key Point 2】
Chemical gas induces unconsciousness, wrist restraints with an electric shock watch, and surveillance cameras installed in the room.
Based on these facts, it is reasonable to deduce that Eva's every move is likely under real-time surveillance by the unknown abductors, and she could face at least remotely controlled physical attacks (the electric shock watch) at any moment.
Yet she chose to voluntarily disarm herself of fundamental human capabilities (vision and mobility), provoke Damon—potentially an accomplice—in a manner that could be interpreted as a challenge, and provide the captor/monitor with critical intelligence regarding Eva's thought processes and decision-making patterns.
The danger inherent in this action need not be elaborated.
————————
【Action Choice: Author's Deduction】
Set Goals: Test whether Damon is foe or friend if deduction】
Action Choice:
The Action Implementer leaves the room, hides near the doorway, and feigns departure.
Avoid introducing variables through presence that could contaminate data, observing the subject's natural reactions when alone.
Simultaneously maintain readiness for immediate withdrawal.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Damon genuinely feigns unconsciousness or exhibits aggression, demonstrating search or destructive behavior toward the action Implementer.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The action implementer cannot control the subject's autonomous actions.
However, the action implementer has not actively compromised data quality or is in a state of voluntary disarmament, and possesses both the readiness and capability for autonomous evacuation.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Set goals achieved: Enemy individual identified.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——Even under worst-case outcomes, the action choice remains effective in serving set goals, and the Action Implementer possesses foundational controllability over it. This action choice qualifies as a 【Safe Strategy】
————————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set goals: Determine if Damon is Friend or Foe】
There appears to be an unfamiliar male here.
I have no idea why I'm here, but judging by the situation, I've most likely been kidnapped and am probably under surveillance—I'm currently in a high-risk environment.
My immediate priority is to ascertain whether this person is friend or foe, using that information to determine my next course of action.
A person's reactions are most genuine when they believe they are alone. As long as I remain in the same space, the other party may conceal their true reactions for various reasons. Even if they have no intention to hide, my mere presence becomes a factor that interferes with their decision-making.
Therefore, I need to feign leaving this room.
The best approach is to find a vantage point near the door where I can remain concealed yet ready to retreat at any moment, allowing me to observe discreetly.
This way, if he shows no suspicious behavior, I can pretend to have just discovered him awake and approach from a distance. This avoids provoking him while giving me reaction time.
If he acts suspiciously or even hostile, I've completed my information gathering and have the chance to evacuate immediately.
————————————
【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】
【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate if Simulation】
Action Choice:
Assume Damon is a hostile threat and proceed accordingly.
Quickly exit this room without approaching Damon or lingering.
Explore other areas to assess the general environment. Avoid direct interaction with potential individuals or objects as long as the action implementer can maintain an observation position in the cover.
Prioritize information gathering while ensuring the action implementer never finds themselves in a position with no physical escape route.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Damon immediately exhibits aggressive intent toward the Action Implementer, displaying pursuit behavior.
The external environment presents an immediate high-risk threat.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The action implementer has evacuated outward and does not lose autonomous action capability.
The action implementer maintains distance from the outside world, avoiding exposure and contact while doing their best to mitigate risks.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Achieving the set goals: Maximizes avoidance of personal risk.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——Because even under worst-case outcomes, the action choice still effectively serves the set goals, and the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it, this action choice qualifies as a 【Safe Strategy】
————————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate】
There appears to be a strange male here.
I don't know why I'm here, but judging by the situation, I've most likely been kidnapped and am probably being watched—I'm currently in a high-risk environment.
I can't stay here any longer.
Who knows what this person's identity is, what his motives are, or even if he was unconscious like me before? In this high-risk environment where everything is unknown, I must assume the worst possible scenario—he is the hostile party.
I must leave immediately.
Even if he pursues me in the worst-case scenario, I'm at least in a condition to run.
Exploring elsewhere carries significant risk, but without investigation, I have no information. Without new information, I lack the foundation or possibility to formulate the next decision, let alone find an opportunity to escape this situation.
I will avoid direct contact with any objects or individuals that might appear here. I cannot determine if they are dangerous. At this moment, when everything is unknown, blindly engaging with unidentified risks could lead to irreversible consequences.
Therefore, I will conceal myself, maintain distance, observe everything, and remain vigilant—ensuring I never place myself in a physically inescapable dead end or corner.
———————
【Action Choice: Author's Deduction】
【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate Scenario】
Action Choice:
Check for visible wounds and vital signs (e.g., breathing, pulse) while avoiding direct contact and movement of Damon to prevent secondary injury.
Avoid wasting time; immediately explore other areas for potential resources or assistance.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Damon's condition is critical.
No usable resources exist in the external environment.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
Can prevent worsening Damon's condition through their own actions.
Can temporarily exclude the useless option of “external resources,” continuing to plan actions based on known information and intelligence alongside the current situation to avoid decision paralysis.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
The severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Achieving the set objective: Maximally avoiding threats to group survival rates.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
—Because even under worst-case outcomes, the action choice still effectively serves the set goals, and the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it, this action choice qualifies as a 【Safe Strategy】
————————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate】
There appears to be an unfamiliar male here.
I have no idea why I'm here, but judging by the situation, I've most likely been kidnapped and am probably under surveillance—I'm currently in a high-risk environment.
He seems to still be unconscious. I don't know his actual condition; even if he looks fine on the surface, there could be issues invisible to the naked eye.
To avoid causing potential secondary harm, I should minimize physical contact and movement with him. First, I need to check his vital signs.
After the check, I have no reason to waste more time. If his condition is critical, every second I delay could be fatal. I should immediately explore outside and search for potential resources or help.
The situation outside is uncertain. Given the current circumstances, it's highly likely to be extremely dangerous.
Risk is unavoidable—beyond my control. Seizing opportunities to save lives is the priority.
Even if I find nothing, at least I'll have dispelled the illusion that “help might be out there.” I can then redirect my focus toward the resources and options still available in the present.
————————————
【Key Supplement】
Yes. Because these three if-line action choices have different set goals, executing one will potentially harm the other set goals.
For example, executing the “friend-or-foe test if” increases the threat to the “personal survival rate if” and “Group survival rate if” targets, and vice versa.
But often, perfection is impossible.
To safeguard one aspect, one must be prepared to let another aspect pay the price.
One can only strive to ensure that action choices serve their set goals while minimizing controllability as much as possible.
————————
【Time Progression】
【Current Objective Situation and Author's Deduction (Eva's Perspective)】
New Information:
The male subject (Damon) identifies himself as Damon Maitsu, claiming to be the Ultimate Debater and a student of Eden's Garden Academy. No direct visible abnormalities in psychological or physiological state. Claims to have also lost consciousness on the train. Weapons status unknown. Has not yet displayed hostility.
Additional Information:
A murky liquid covers the lower floor, reaching approximately ankle height.
A generator near the ventilation shaft has exposed wiring in contact with the murky liquid.
No signs of other personnel besides myself (Eva) and the currently non-hostile individual (Damon) are detected in the room or external corridor.
Objective Enemy/Friend Assessment:
Enemy 1:
I (Eva) have just regained consciousness from unconsciousness. My physical condition is uncertain. I am unarmed and restrained by an electric shock bracelet.
The enemy is presumed to be an unknown individual or a kidnapping organization. All information, including their combat capabilities, is unknown.
I (Eva) cannot ascertain enemy intelligence.
Enemy surveillance likely monitors me (Eva) in real-time.
Enemy 2:
I (Eva) am female.
The enemy (worst-case scenario) is male.
No discernible physical or age disparity exists between me (Eva) and the enemy (worst-case scenario) based on observation.
My (Eva's) identity and abilities: Ultimate Mathlete (non-combat oriented).
Enemy (worst-case scenario)'s identity: Ultimate Debater (self-reported) (non-combat oriented).
Author's Deduction:
This constitutes a high-risk environment and situation. Currently available information suggests the presence of organized crime. Eva's every move is highly likely under surveillance.
Eva holds no advantages or security guarantees regarding information, physical condition, or abilities.
——————
【Action Implementer (Eva) Actual Action Choice】
Throw the light bulb found in the room into the murky liquid to test its conductivity.
【Set goal 1 — Determine the safety of the bottom layer liquid to decide whether to enter water (based on Eva's behavior)】
【Set goal 2 — Personal survival rate (based on assumptions)】
【Set Goals 3 — Group survival rate (Based on Assumptions)】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
The light bulb is defective. Test results are therefore invalid.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The Action Implementer possesses no means to definitively verify or guarantee the bulb's condition.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
————
【Key Additions】
Below are brief additions regarding other potential risks.
If clothing becomes soaked and cannot be dried, it may lead to negative conditions like illness or hypothermia.
Without knowledge of the liquid's specific composition and underlying conditions, injuries sustained may prove untreatable.
Damon may suddenly attack when Eva's movement is restricted by the liquid.
Unknown abductors may suddenly appear and attack when Eva and Damon are restricted in their movements within the liquid.
As a reminder, based on the information currently available from Eva's perspective, this is likely a high-risk environment with no basic social safety net, and it operates outside the law. Should Eva or Damon sustain injuries, they could very likely fall into an irreversible vicious cycle.
Moreover, like the lying-down test, this action will expose them to malicious observers, continuing to provide critical intelligence on Eva's thought and decision-making patterns.
A truly boundless and efficient perpetrator would not overlook the potential value of exploiting such behavioral patterns.
—————————
【Action Choice: Author's Deduction】
【Set Goal 1: Determine the safety of the liquid on the room floor to decide whether to enter the water】
Abandon setting goals.
Truly confirming the safety of the liquid on the room floor, let alone the safety of entering the water, is objectively impossible from the current perspective.
To guarantee harmlessness upon entering the water at this point:
1. Immediately acquire the ability to scan all underlying data of the surrounding environment, fully scan it, and perfectly analyze it.
2. Immediately acquire the ability (for both Eva and Damon) to become immune to all potential negative effects and damage.
As stated above, achieving the set goal requires entering the realm of superpowers and mental illusions.
Given the story's setting (currently known information) as a quasi-real world, this set goal loses its consideration value.
————
【Set goals: Personal survival rate if deduction】
【Set goals: Group survival rate if deduction】
Action choice:
Directly abandon entering the murky liquid and inspecting the vent. Explore other areas outside.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Miss out on potential intelligence beyond the vent.
The existence of intelligence outside the vent and its value remain uncertain.
However, the worst-case outcomes of entering the murky liquid are foreseeable and certain.
Regardless of whether information beyond the vent is discovered, exploring the outside is an action that ultimately cannot be avoided.
Therefore, exploring the vent is not absolutely necessary.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
Whether to leave, when to leave, and where to investigate can be decided by the Action Implementer themselves.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Set goals 1—Confirm safety of liquid on room floor: No longer necessary
Set goals 2—Personal survival rate: Achieved
Set goals 3—Group survival rate: Achieved
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Fully controllable.
—Even under the worst-case outcomes, the action choice effectively serves the set goals, and the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it. This action choice qualifies as a 【Safe Strategy】
————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set goals: Personal survival rate | Group survival rate】
The immediate priority is gathering intelligence.
Information may lie beyond the vent, but accessing it requires descending into an unknown liquid that has the generator in contact with it, and one carrying another on the shoulder to observe.
Each step carries potential irreversible risks, while the potential reward remains uncertain.
There's no reason to do this.
Regardless of whether I check the vent, I must venture out to explore. Why would I burden myself with unnecessary risks before even starting?
I am both the capital for exploration and the beneficiary of its results. Endangering myself for the sake of exploration puts the cart before the horse.
Therefore, I will forgo inspecting the vent and seek information elsewhere directly.
——————————
【Key Supplement】
Although the moment Eva chose to test the murky, unknown liquid using the room's bulb of unknown condition, subsequent actions were rendered strategically irrelevant.
Nevertheless, let's briefly examine Eva's subsequent decision.
Namely, ‘insisting on carrying Damon herself due to height limitations, so Damon could inspect the other side of the vent.’
From a purely cost-benefit calculation perspective, this was not a good choice.
Damon and Eva are physically comparable, neither possessing combat or physical prowess.
But Damon is male, and Eva is female, meaning a physical strength disparity likely exists.
Eva choosing to bear the weight inherently increased the risk of injury for both herself and Damon. In this environment, even seemingly minor injuries could prove fatal.
Moreover, this reconnaissance mission wasn't strictly necessary.
—And the more critical question is: What if Damon concealed or lied about what he saw?
Though letting Damon carry Eva also poses risks (he might suddenly turn hostile).
However, since Damon also needs information and showed no hostility when Eva performed the high-risk “lying-down test,” if she must inspect the vent, this option carries less physical risk than the original choice.
Most crucially, it provided information—firsthand intelligence that Eva could obtain without the risk of tampering or concealment by others.
In sudden crises and potentially high-risk environments filled with unknowns, lacking intelligence means lacking a basis for decision-making. A persistent lack of intelligence will ultimately lead to decision paralysis.
Finally, the two caught a glimpse of Wolfgang's shadow and decided to venture out to search.
However, even without checking the vent, they would still need to venture out to explore, and doing so might even allow them to find him and Grace faster.
From a purely results-oriented perspective, if Wolfgang and Grace were in imminent danger, the unnecessary sequence of actions—“testing if the liquid conducts electricity → entering the liquid → arguing over who carries whom → deciding Eva should carry Damon to elevate their view of the vent → debating whether to explore outside”—would have wasted precious time that could have been used for rescue or evasion.
Moreover, allow me to give a straightforward example.
What if what's across the gap isn't Wolfgang's shadow, but a weapon?
And what if Damon is a pure self-interested individual who lies about nothing being there, then distracts Eva to seize the weapon himself?
As the audience, we know this is a Danganronpa-style setup, but do the characters know? What if this is a physical battle royale?
—————————————————————————————————
【Time Progression】
【Current Objective Situation and Author's Deduction (Eva's Perspective)】
New Information:
This appears to be an enclosed space with a virtual dome (based on current information).
Multiple areas seem to exist, though details remain unclear.
Currently visible personnel include myself and 16 others, all claiming to be fellow Ultimate students and Eden Academy students who awoke here after losing consciousness on the same train. All wear electric shock wristbands, and none claim to understand the situation.
No weapons or usable objects are within reach.
Objective Enemy/Friend Assessment:
Enemy 1
Me (Eva): Physical condition stable, unarmed, restrained by electric wristbands.
Enemy presumed to be unknown individuals or a kidnapping organization; all information, including combat capabilities, is unknown.
Me (Eva): Unable to ascertain enemy information.
Enemy presumed capable of real-time surveillance of me (Eva).
Enemy 2
Me (Eva): 1 individual
Enemy (worst-case scenario): 15 individuals
Author's Deduction:
This constitutes a potentially high-risk environment and scenario, with evidence pointing to premeditated, organized criminal activity.
Potential malicious perpetrators likely possess remote surveillance capabilities and substantial resources.
All actions and communications by Eva and others will be directly exposed to the adversary, potentially leading to unknown consequences.
Eva possesses no military assets. Her physical safety depends on remote, instantaneous physical punishment capabilities that cannot be countered.
Basic information about the group present (self-reported) has been gathered. The most plausible hypothesis is that they are fellow kidnapping victims. However, any individual—or indeed, everyone except herself—could be a potential malicious party or accomplice to the kidnappers.
No security guarantees.
No place to escape.
————————
【Action Implementer (Eva) Actual Action Choice】
Claims to be the “Ultimate Liar.”
【Set Goals — Personal Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Permanently marked by the group as a potential hostile entity.
Prioritized by the group as a target for elimination.
Marked as a threat or subject of surveillance by potentially malicious individuals behind the scenes.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
No effective means exist to predict or control how the group or potentially malicious individuals behind the scenes interpret the behavior of the “self-proclaimed Ultimate Liar,” nor their potential future actions.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
【Key Supplement】
This essentially applies to becoming the public enemy of the group.
During sudden crises, human instincts scan and remain alert to danger signals.
The term “Liar” in modern civilized society generally inherently carries negative connotations.
Its broad definition implies uncontrollability and danger.
And “self-identifying as a liar”—even in civilized societies, this is an act contrary to survival instincts—multiplies the unpredictability and perceived threat level of the Action Implementer in others' eyes.
Interacting with an individual who identifies as a liar means potential risks are infinitely high, while potential gains are completely unpredictable or even negative.
Should a group's civilization regress to a point where survival instincts override moral boundaries, subjects flagged as unpredictable high-risk entities will likely be the first to be eliminated.
The reverse holds equally true.
If potential malicious behind-the-scenes figures possess long-term, stable control ambitions, unpredictable entities will be prioritized for red-flagging or outright elimination.
————
【Set Goals—Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
The group's trust chain fractures due to contamination by the “liar” symbol, plunging into an endless chain of suspicion.
The rational baseline and basic cooperation essential for group survival may collapse.
Civilizational standards rapidly deteriorate, descending into a law of the jungle where the weak perish.
Potential malicious figures behind the scenes gain absolute dominance or accelerate the elimination of the entire group.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
Action Implementer possesses no effective means to predict or control either the group's interpretation of the “self-proclaimed ultimate liar” behavior or the potential future actions of potentially malicious figures behind the scenes.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
————
【Key Supplement】
In lawless territories unbound by civilized institutions, an individual's “trustworthiness” serves as the sole currency for collaboration.
The existence of “liar” symbols signifies systemic contamination of information exchange environments. Within the potential deadlock of an information vacuum, they blatantly threaten the very basics of group survival.
Once the snowball effect begins, if both the group and the malicious force behind the scenes seek stability, they will logically recognize that unless this dangerous symbol is erased, the current state risks sliding into a self-destructive spiral.
——————
【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】
【Set Goals 1 — Personal Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】
【Set Goals 2 — Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】
Action Choice: Introduce oneself as the “Ultimate Mathlete” (actual title)
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Discrimination due to a mismatch between talent and current environmental needs, or due to stereotypes.
Decreased resource allocation and reduced social status weighting.
The “Mathlete” symbol carries no inherent negative connotations; its interpretation varies based on individual perceptions.
Conceptually neutral, does not possess information contamination properties.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
Group interpretation and reactions are uncontrollable.
The action implementer can influence or attempt to alter the potential situation through their own actions.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Set goals 1 — Personal survival rate: Achieved
Set goals 2 — Group survival rate: Achieved
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
—Even under worst-case outcomes, the action choice effectively serves the set goals, and the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it. This action choice qualifies as a【Safe Strategy】.
——————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set goals: Personal survival rate | Group survival rate】
My title is Ultimate Mathlete.
Under current circumstances, this title hardly conveys a sense of “usefulness,” but conversely, its connotations are entirely harmless.
First, in such a dangerous situation, being deemed useless—even ignored—is actually advantageous. It allows me to remain more inconspicuous.
The more prominent and “useful” a title is, the more likely others will label you a “potential threat.” After all, there are always those who thrive on infighting, no matter the circumstances.
Second, if I lie and it's exposed later, I'm finished.
The current situation is likely high-risk, with all information unknown, and I know nothing about these people.
Naturally, I must avoid placing myself in greater danger. Who knows how they'll react when they discover they've been deceived? I can't risk my life betting that they're all civilized, educated individuals bound by their own moral code, can I?
Third, even setting aside the group, those kidnappers behind the scenes haven't revealed themselves yet.
They might know my information, or they might not.
If they don't know, then proactively giving myself a potentially threatening identity could get me flagged.
If they do know, then creating a false identity for myself is like claiming I have a hidden motive or instability—essentially flagging myself.
The same applies at the group level: introducing uncontrollable factors and risks—such as lying, sowing suspicion and chaos, or drawing the kidnappers' attention—equates to needlessly gambling with everyone's safety.
In short, I have absolutely no reason to lie about my title.
—————————————————————————————————
【Time Progression】
【Current Objective Situation and Author's Deduction (Eva's Perspective)】
New Information:
A broadcast sounded, with a voice on the other end issuing specific action commands to the group.
At the doorway of a room in the corridor they had just passed, a motionless humanoid figure suddenly appeared, covered in a blood-like liquid, with a rifle lying beside it.
No one claims knowledge of this.
The group descends into chaos due to the sudden violent scene.
Objective Enemy-Friendly Assessment:
Enemy 1
Me (Eva): Physical condition stable, unarmed, restrained by an electric shock bracelet.
Enemy: Presumed to include the entity issuing broadcasts. The current violent scene indicates lethal execution capabilities, likely already deployed.
Me (Eva): Unable to ascertain enemy information.
Enemy: Can monitor me (Eva) in real-time via surveillance.
Enemy 2
Me (Eva): 1 individual.
Enemy (worst-case assumption): 15 individuals.
Potential Variable: Ownership of the rifle.
Author's Deduction:
This environment has presented real, close-range, and unexplained physical death.
Immediate risk of death.
No place to flee.
The presence of weapons and group disarray indicates that the situation is highly likely to escalate into violent conflict immediately.
The Action Implementer possesses no violent capital. Physical safety depends on remote, indecipherable capabilities for instant physical punishment and the unknown source creating the current violent scenario.
The emergence of voices after the broadcast confirms the presence of an active entity with potentially high malicious intent. Its actions and objectives (such as directing group behavior) must be presumed malicious.
——————————
【Action Implementer (Eva)‘s Actual Action Choice】
Without prior notification to the group, based on personal intuition and the judgment that ‘it has no smell’, reached out and poked the face of the motionless humanoid entity covered in a blood-like fluid.
【Set Goals — Personal Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Outcome 1. The humanoid entity is a trap trigger mechanism, resulting in instant death.
Outcome 2. The humanoid entity possesses biological hazard properties.
Outcome 3. The humanoid entity is a decoy device, with an unknown hostile entity launching a surprise attack from the shadows.
Outcome 4. The humanoid entity is a malicious human impersonator who suddenly attacks.
Outcome 5. Due to the sudden, unannounced action and posture near the rifle, the group (15 individuals, friend or foe unknown) interprets it as an attack intent, resulting in immediate elimination.
Outcome 6. Immediate elimination by the unknown malicious entity that issued the broadcast for unauthorized action.
The above represents only basic worst-case outcomes deduction.
Actual possible outcomes far exceed these examples; further details are omitted here due to space constraints.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The Action Implementer cannot ascertain the true nature of humanoid entities, cannot control the group's interpretation and reaction, and cannot control the actions of malicious entities after broadcast.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
——————
【Set Goals — Group survival rate (Based on Assumptions)】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Outcome 1: The humanoid entity is a large-scale trap trigger, resulting in the group's instant death.
Outcome 2: The “unannounced rifle approach” triggers group panic, leading to violent conflict and internal collapse.
Outcome 3: Unauthorized actions provoke an unknown hostile entity behind the broadcast, resulting in indiscriminate execution.
The above represents only basic worst-case outcomes deduction.
Actual possible outcomes far exceed these examples; further elaboration is omitted here due to space constraints.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
As above.
Action Implementers cannot ascertain the true nature of humanoid entities, cannot control the group's interpretation or reactions, and cannot control the actions of hostile entities post-broadcast.
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
——————
【Key Supplement】
A potentially malicious entity directs you to a specific location, where a potential murder scene suddenly appears.
The malicious intent signaled by this scenario needs no complex Deduction.
Moreover, the inference that ‘no smell means it's not a corpse’—let's ignore variables and just count it as correct.
But if it's not an actual corpse, aren't the other possibilities even worse?
Enemy disguises, traps, decoy devices—none of these are corpses either.
What if the “corpse” suddenly opens its eyes and stabs you? Or explodes? Or a bullet fires from behind the door as you approach to investigate?
——————